From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jes Sorensen Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: mdadm 3.2.4 - A tool for managing Soft RAID under Linux Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:03:21 +0200 Message-ID: <4FB1FFB9.5090300@redhat.com> References: <2598499.YYnUQlf0Se@localhost> <4FB16B68.3000201@redhat.com> <1714869.L4aqWfddyq@localhost> <4FB17212.3000308@redhat.com> <20120515073219.1275b10a@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120515073219.1275b10a@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: NeilBrown Cc: =?UTF-8?B?UGF3ZcWCIFNpa29yYQ==?= , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 05/14/12 23:32, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2012 22:58:58 +0200 Jes Sorensen >> If you post a patch without including a proper commit message and >> signed-off-by lines, which is standard practice, then that is equivalent >> to you not having posted a patch in the first place. >> >> Don't blame others for not doing the basic work everybody else does when >> posting patches. It really isn't hard to comply with the standard patch >> posting rules! > > I decided a better approach is just to refresh from upstream: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/cilkplus/include/sha1.h > http://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/cilkplus/libiberty/sha1.c > > have been copied into mdadm with just a tiny change to not include config.h > > Seems to work, and probably has the *right* fix. I would tend to agree with you, if not we can hollor at the gcc guys :) Cheers, Jes